The organizer knows that the real action is in the reaction of the opposition. To realistically appraise and anticipate the probable reactions of the enemy, he must be able to identify with them, too, in his imagination, and foresee their reactions to his actions….
From Rules for Radicals, by Saul Alinsky
Chaos and Violence: How New Year’s Eve in Cologne Has Changed Germany
This is the title of the article at Spiegel Online. At the moment of this writing, the first four articles at the site are regarding this same event:
New Year’s Eve in Cologne rapidly descended into a chaotic free-for-all involving sexual assault and theft, most of it apparently committed by foreigners.
Rules for Radicals: A ... Best Price: $2.74 Buy New $6.25 (as of 02:45 UTC - Details)
Not just any foreigners. Much of the blame – rightly or wrongly – is being placed at the feet of some subset of the recent immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa, the fruit of a) the west’s perpetual wars in the region, and b) Merkel’s open borders policy.
A lot happened on New Year’s Eve in Cologne, much of it contradictory, much of it real, much of it imagined. Some was happenstance, some was exaggerated and much of it was horrifying. In its entirety, the events of Cologne on New Year’s Eve and in the days that followed adhered to a script that many had feared would come true even before it actually did.
Their behavior, and the subsequent discussion of their behavior in the halls of political power in Berlin, in the media and on the Internet, could easily trigger a radical shift in Germany’s refugee and immigration policies. The pressure built up by the images and stories from Cologne make it virtually impossible to continue on as before. That, too, is a paradox: The pressure would be no less intense even if not a single one of the refugees and migrants who arrived in 2015 were among the perpetrators. (Emphasis added)
The truth of the matter is irrelevant to my point in this post, and it is irrelevant to the events to come in Germany and elsewhere.
I have written quite a bit about culture and open borders, applying the non-aggression principle in the world we currently live in – not in some future libertarian world; in that future world there would be no such thing as open borders, because there is no state in libertarian theory. And the borders of private property are not open – they are managed.
From an earlier post, Why Culture Matters, I offered the following:
So what does culture have to do with maintaining a libertarian order? This, to me, is quite simple: the less conflict, the less chance that some self-proclaimed and self-pitying disadvantaged group will look to a savior to deliver them from their perceived suffering.
The less conflict the less chance that people will look for someone to do something about it. The “someone” will ultimately be the monopoly provider of fixing all things for all people.
And there goes the libertarian order – or even the possibility of moving closer to one.
And this gets to the point of this post. But first, the story:
On New Year’s Eve in Cologne, it was — according to numerous witness reports — drunk young men from North Africa who formed gangs to go after defenseless individuals. They humiliated and robbed — and they sexually assaulted women.
This isn’t the real action.
This is:
New Year’s Eve marks a shift because it crystallized a widespread unease with state inaction.
And this:
What is clear, however, is that the police were unprepared and that they failed.
And this:
…it was also about the quality of the work done by the police and about a state being unequal to the task facing it.
And this:
Some 80 riot police from the 14th Company were on duty that night, which was twice as many as had been patrolling the streets the previous year — an increase that was largely due to fears of terrorist attacks. The Cologne police station had requested the full complement of 124 riot police, but the state police headquarters denied the request.
And this:
…[Merkel] has already responded to the violence in Cologne by saying that it deserved a “tough response by the state”…
And this:
Merkel is suddenly calling for a “tough response,”…
And this:
In the case of violence against police officers and other emergency personnel, a new designation will be created that will come with “significantly higher prison sentences.”
“…unease with state inaction,”… “the police were unprepared and…they failed”… “a state being unequal to the task”…“full complement of…riot police”…“’a tough response by the state’”…“’significantly higher prison sentences.’”
More police, more state, more penalties.
The real action is in the reaction. I return to my earlier post and the point of this post (and forgive the repetition):
So what does culture have to do with maintaining a libertarian order? This, to me, is quite simple: the less conflict, the less chance that some self-proclaimed and self-pitying disadvantaged group will look to a savior to deliver them from their perceived suffering.
The less conflict the less chance that people will look for someone to do something about it. The “someone” will ultimately be the monopoly provider of fixing all things for all people.
And there goes the libertarian order – or even the possibility of moving closer to one.
No matter the pleasant thoughts of open-borders libertarians, in this world we have an open borders example turning into a call for more state action. Just as I wrote.
Summary
The entire statement, again, from Alinsky:
The organizer knows that the real action is in the reaction of the opposition. To realistically appraise and anticipate the probable reactions of the enemy, he must be able to identify with them, too, in his imagination, and foresee their reactions to his actions….
Ask yourself: who is the “opposition” in this drama? Who is the “enemy”?
Look in the mirror.
This is the fruit of “open borders” in this world.
Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.
